I think the problem in trying to go deeper into these issues is the same problem they’ve had since day one. The man who wrote the version of history (Krakauer) that ultimately became the dominate narrative is a bit less likeable than those who ultimately made mistakes and who are viewed less favorably in John’s account. So by my opinion, John did a good journalistic job but the others who survived the event are much less willing to support or add detail or weight to John’s account because they either like (or liked) those people and would rather not disparage them or prefer not to add fuel to the fire -especially to benefit John -a guy most people viewed with consternation or fear on the trip because he was journaling everything everyone said and in all honesty John’s not exactly a “hangout” type of person anyways. But for John, telling the hard story and possibly angering people is part of the profession. That said -I don’t think John’s version is perfect by any means -nor is any perspective ever going to be -but it’s a fantastic read -as is most everything he does.

I write all this to say the filmmakers probably didn’t get universal or even marginal support for some of the more subtle or inflammatory themes in John’s book especially the stuff even John didn’t want to expound on very far (example would be the philandery and adultery in camps) -especially now that 20 years have passed and opinions and passions have been muted. Another example would be many of the survivors trying to protect Sandy Hill’s image (because by all accounts she was extremely likeable) but yet at the same time adding weight to the accuracy of John’s book by endorsing the accounts and job John did -which somewhat buries Sandy. So the screenwriters when doing their homework and interviewing people probably chose to only suggest some of those themes to appease the educated crowd but not focus on them keep the narrative moving for the real target audience -the popcorn crowd -whose opinion will ultimately be the gauge of success for the film in a commercial sense.

The opposite approach would have been the Oliver Stone way -which would be to take mostly unfounded material or suggestive material and present it as the inflammatory truth -which in the Everest case -would have maybe made a better film but certainly would have been unfair to the survivors and those who ultimately we would like to honor in their death.

And look, of course I could have it all wrong too -it’s easy to question motivation, character, and decisions made at extreme altitude from my armchair and think that even those who lived version’s are even close to what happened -high emotion and survival clouds it all -these people all loved the mountains like I do, and wouldn’t expect the general public to understand why people take risks on 8000m peaks and especially why ultimately a death on Everest (while an unwanted outcome) is however an acceptable consequence for pursuing your dreams and experiencing life.

These climbers all tried to something I consider great -as strange as that sounds. So I’m not expecting too much from this film written for an audience who mostly cannot fathom why people go to 8000m peaks in the first place (especially after the last film attempt at this -haha) and I don’t go to the movies for the CG so here’s hoping I can grab something meaningful out of this film -while honoring those who lost their life pursuing their dreams.